The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.C praying that In the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 890 of 2020, on the file of Hon'ble I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petilion, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 890 of 2020, on the file of I Additional Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K- VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri SUNDARESAN, Advocate representing Sri V SUBRAMANYAM, Advocate for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOIIRABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIUTNAL PETITIOIT No.473O of 2()2L ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking to quash tJre proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.89O of 2O2O on the file of the 'at learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Godhavarikhani (for short, 'the trial CourtJ.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in C.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2020 at 12:30 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused stating tJlat he resides at Annapurna colony, NTPC and he had land to arr extent of Ac.OO.OS guntas in Sy.No.SO8, which is an ancestral property. The accused obtained permission from Ramagundam Municipal Corporation uide C.No.3O15/W6l2Ol8lL342, dated

03.08.2018 for construction of building in Sy.No.559, but he levelled and cleaned vacant land in Sy-No.SO8. The complainant approached the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ramgaundam and explained the same and -..-, 2 a submitted documents to that effect. On pert sal of the said documents and on satisfaction, ttre Municipe I Commissioner issued a letter dated 05.02 .2OL9 to the ac cused to stop construction. The Commissioner, Ramgun< am Municipal Corporation had also written a letter to A I E Survey and Land Records, peddapalli for identi{fng he land and boundaries of Sy.No.5O8 and 559 and dematr ate the vacant land in which survey numbers it exists. A<:r ordingly, ADE Survey and Land Records, peddapalli deputec Dy. Inspector of Survey for conducting survey of the land ir iy.No.Sog and demarcate the boundaries of S5r.Nos.SOg anrt 559. The Dy. Inspector of Survey served notices to the ac:used. Later, survey was conducted. During the surve 7 accused was present. After completing the survey, the tr. .. Inspector of survey conducted panchanama on 1O.Og.:) )19 and had shown boundaries of Sy.No.SOg. According _o sr:rvey, tJre vaeant land clearly falls in Sy.No.SOg and o: L showing the boundaries, they erected boundary pillars. ( n OS.OZ.2O2O tlte accused trespassed into the vacant lanc, levelled and. excavated the land with the help of JCB in Sy I to.SOg instead 3 of Sy.No.559 and made irreparable loss to him- Hence, tJre present complaint.

4. Basing on the said complaint, LW-9 registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2O2O under Sectioos 447 atd 427 of IPC and took up the investigation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused ald Iearned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

6. t earned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 471.24 sq.yards in Sy.No.559, situated at Bheemunipatnam Sub Road Locality, Medipally PM Village Shivar, Ramagr:ndam Municipal Limits ald the sarne was purchased through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4712 of 2O13, dated 04.O7.2013- The petitioner submitted an apptication before the Ramgadundam Municipal Corporation requesting to gralt permission for constructing Stilt + 4 fl'oors- The said authorities granted permission on 03.08-2018. Thereafter, the petitioner started construction work. Respondent No'2 having developed a coveted eye over the satr land, with an intention to have false gain and to deprive tt:r valuable right of the petitioner over the said land, frled a S-l .t in O.S.No.47 of 2O2O, for perpetual injunction. Along will the sajd suit, he also filed an Interlocutory Application uri le I.A.No.Sg of 2O2O to grant ad-interim injunction. There after, I.A. was allowed uid.e order dated 2L.12-2O20, howerr r, the same is no way concerned witi the plot of Iand of tJl: petitioner and tl.e intention of respondent No.2, is only unl:r the guise of said orders to deprive the valuable rights c I the petitioner over his said plot, as such, the petitioner h: i preferred an appeal rzde C.M.A.No.l of 2O2L, on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, at Godavarikhani and t re same was allowed.

7. l.earned counsel further submitted that the petitioner fiIed a suit uid.e O.S.No. I49 of 2O1g, which .s pending for adjudication and respondent No.2 also frled z counter blast suit urde O.S.No.22 of 2019, which is al;r pending for adjudication. The subject matter is purel-y r civil dispute and the petitioner is in peaceful possession zur l enjoSrment of the same, as sucl, ii_ ca--nnot be said th: . even if the 5 allegations in the charge sheet, F.I.R and 161 statements are looked into, they do not constitute any of the offences as alleged above, as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed.

8. Per @rttro", the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemenfly contended that only after completion of the investigation, the Investigating OIIicer has filed charge-sheet before the learned trial Court and the case was numbered as C.C.No.89O of 2O2O and the truth or otherwise would be revealed only after full-fledged trial' Therefore, he prays this Court to dismiss the present criminal petition. g. A perusal of the statements of td:re de facto complainant and other witnesses recorded by the investigating oflicer under section 161 Cr-P-C shows that there are material to attract tlre offences under sectio n 427 and 447 of IPC' f O)., In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of . the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.S79 of 2Ol9 d,ated, 02'04'2019 in the case of 6 a, Detendra Prasq.d fingh Vs. Sltqte of Bthar &Arrr.,l follows:- S "12. So far a.s the seand ground i.s < oncerned., tte are of the uiew ttnt the High Court while h zaring the appliution urder *dion 4g2 of the Cr.p.(,. had_ no jurisdietion to appreciate thE statem.ent of tfu aitnesses and. reor.d. a findtq tlut there uere inrrins s tencies in their statemerts and., therefore, there utas no prima facie co.se mad.e out against respond.ent N.t 2. In our uiew, this auld be d.one only tn tle trial wltt[, d.ecid.ing the rssues on the merits or/ ond. by the Appe I ate Court u-thile deciding tle appeal arising out of the I nal order passed bE the Triol Court but not in Section ,1,,2 Cr.p.C. proeedings.

13. In uiew of tLe foregoittg drlscussbr, we allotu tLe appeal, set asid.e the impugrted ord.er ar d restore the oforementioned cornptaint ca-se to its orig t al file for being proeeded uith on merits in awrd-arrce , uith lau.t.

11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of I rdia dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.Nc .LST2 of 20 19 dated L7.lO.2Olg tn the case of Centr,z I Bureau of r 20t9 (4) SCC 3sr 1 Inttstigatlon Vs. Arulnd Khanna2, wherein, it has been held as follows: "19. After perusing the impugned order an'd' on learing the submi.ssions made by the learned senior aunsels on both sides, tae are of the uieu tlnt the impugned order passed by ttte High Court i's rtot s'ustainabte. In a petition fled under *ction 482 of CI.P.C., t E High Court hrrs rearded findings on seueral disputed facr.s ottd. olloued the petition- Defene of tle amtsed is to be tested afier appreciating the euidene during trial. The uery fact that the HUh C'ourt, in this @se, u)ent into tle most minute details, on the atlegotions mo.de bg tle appellant-C-B'L, ond the defene put-forth bg tle responden| led us to a anclusion tlat he High Court lws exeeded its power' uhite exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20. In our uiew, tle dssessrnent made bg the HUh Court at this stoge, ulwn tle matter ha's been taken @gnizane by the ComPetent Court, is ompletely inoned and. unalled for." L2. F\rrttrer the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated O2.L2.2OL9 in Crl.A'No'1817 of 2Ol9 ;n 2 AIR 2V)O SUPREME COURT 3448 t a tlre case of M*_hgqnthl ps. R.R..l.eenaksht & cnr.,[Crl.A.No.l8LZ of 2OI9 (Arising out cf Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.74l of 2OL9l, dated.02.t2.2r) t9 as follows: '9. It b too late in the d.ay to seek re rerence to any authorttg for the prcposition that uthile itL ,oking the puter under *cl;ion 492 Cr-p.C fo, qt shbg a omplatnt or a charge, tle Coutt slauld r,<t emba* upon an enauirv into the ualid.itg of ttu: syidsne auailable. All th.a.t the Couft should. see is as t r tDhetter ttere are allegations in tte amplaint uhict fonn the ba.sis for tLe ingredients tlnt a nstifute certau . offences amplained. of. The Court may aLso be entittec to see (i) uthetLer tLE prccondilbr* reqti.site fo taking agnizane ltcue been amptied with or nt,r and. (ii) whether tle allegattott s antained. in the t tmplaint, euen if arcepted in enttretg, utould not cons :itute tle offers olleged.

13. A look at tle amplaint fited by tfu, tppellant wouLd. shou_t tLnt tl@ oppellant hnd. inorpo, ated. the ingredients ne@sso;ry for proseanting the res nndents for the offenes alleged. Ttte question wl,t tLer tLe appellant toill be able to proue the allegani nts in a manner lotown to lana uould. arise onlg at a lot tr stoge. \ L 9

13. The above judgments are squarely applicable to ttris case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in a quash petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C' L4. In view of the discussion made herein before' this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C'C'No'890 of 2O2O on the frle of the learned I Additiona-l Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godhavarikhani' The petitioner/ accused is at liberty to raise all tJle grounds before the trial Court.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending' shall stand closed. SD/- L VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR A ,TTRUE COPY/' ECTION OFFICER To, .1. The t Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani. 2. The Station House Officer, NTPC Police Station, Peddapalli District- 3. One CC to SRI K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to SRI V SUBRAMANYAM, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Cou( Buildings, Hyderabad.(OUT)

6. 2 CD Copies. P alrD r /rlD HIGH coURT DATED:2810712025 ORDER CRLP.No.4730 of 2O21 ,/':. /.,' ': '- ,/.: ,'j J 'r, u ;l ^_ r ,-)- \..'- \1. l^\. C 2WJ:L CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED. q